South Carolina election officials faced with the possibility of losing millions of dollars in federal funds that would enable the state to raise its election standards should take steps to keep that money from slipping through their fingers.

Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed a portion of the budget that would have given the State Election Commission matching funds for another year. The state has received $6.8 million in federal assistance since federal legislation required states to create long-term plans for improving statewide elections and could receive an additional $42 million over the next three years.

Sanford vetoed the legislative appropriation -- $700,000 -- because it was funded from an unstable source of income. He considered the budget item "not really funded" by the General Assembly, and he is correct in his thinking that "items that merit funding should be funded with real dollars, not placed on a wish list."

State election officials shouldn't view that veto, however, as reason to shelve the state's plan that calls for a statewide uniform voting system and other election improvements, including giving support to disabled voters and providing training for poll workers.

The federal Help America Vote Act, under which South Carolina would receive a share of funds to implement that plan, resulted from Florida's botched 2000 presidential election. It is intended, for example, to help states replace punch-card voting systems.

While South Carolina has had fewer election problems than other states, voting is not uniform, and there have been pockets of confusion and voter inconvenience.

Our elections should offer the latest technologies. Voters should be better educated. Poll workers should have more training. Poorer counties should be afforded help in replacing antiquated punch-card machines.

The state shouldn't relax its efforts to overcome all obstacles to voting, and the State Election Commission would do well to find "real" funds to support that mission.

The commission has available to it money left over from state primaries that typically would be carried forward to cover expenses of future primaries, but this may be the time to put up that money as the state's match for a much greater return in federal dollars.